Wikisource:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 326 active users here.

Contents

Announcements[edit]

2017 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Nov 6: The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey started today, and already Wikisource has two proposals! But we need more... so come on over to Meta and tell the world what cool new tool or bugfix we need. Anyone can propose anything, anytime till the 19th of November, and then voting on the proposals will begin on the 27th. Sam Wilson 23:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nov 27: Voting has now started; you've got two weeks to vote. Some Wikisource-related proposals are:

Sam Wilson 00:58, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Timeless skin deployed[edit]

For the community to note that the skin "timeless" is now available for review of functionality via your preferences—we asked for this to be made available. At this point of time, people can give their error reports via phabricator: or in this section on this page if the community prefers. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:19, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

Consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law)[edit]

Since the Internet Archive is the first institution to exploit this feature of America's arcane and backwards copyright law, I suggest we be the second: Section 108h of the U.S. Code allows libraries to scan and make available materials published 1923 to 1941 if they are not being actively sold. One immediate objection I see is that it would introduce overhead on our part to determine if a work is actively being sold. On the contrary, I would suggest that this is no different than a DMCA request: assume that a work is not (most aren't), use basic common sense for due diligence, and then let someone else complain if he thinks we are hosting something we shouldn't be. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource does far more than just scan works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Books from 1923 to 1941 Now Liberated! not too hard to determine if in print. do a alibris / amazon / worldcat. and a search for non-renewal is not too hard. and internet archive is doing the search and hosting. however, this community would never agree to such a librarian standard of practice. in 2 years we will start counting up anyway. do you have any orphans before 1941 of interest? Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the proposal is changing the underlying predication of Wikisource in that we would be moving to a non-commercial type license, something akin to PD-1941-NC. These works would be unable to be taken from our site and reproduced as all our existing works can be. How would you differentiate between those works that can and those that cannot be commercialised? — billinghurst sDrewth
    As a follow-up, I am not opposed to the exploration of this matter, I just think that it needs a reasoned proposal, not a "dump and run". If it is going to be a dump and run, then I propose that it is moved to the bottom of this page. @Koavf: if you are going to put together something which we can explore and look through nuanced argument, then I look forward to your proposal. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Billinghurst: Not sure what you mean--I left this here for feedback. I don't know what more you want. I could respond to every person the moment he posts but I wanted to elicit some discussion. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:32, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Koavf: But you left it in the "Proposals" section. If you just wanted feedback and a discussion, then this isn't a Proposal but a discussion topic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @EncycloPetey: Because it would mean a pretty fundamental change to our approach to works here. It isn't just an idle chat about issues tangentially related to Wikisource but a way to refactor some of what we do and which would require some broad consensus, re-writing policy pages, etc. If other users think it's a non-starter (and clearly, several do), then the community is rejecting my proposed changes and it's just food for thought. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
    @Koavf: I think you've missed what first billinghurst meant, and my response to your question said. You made a "suggestion" or "comment", whereas a "proposal" is usually a more formal sort of presentation than what you posted. So billinghurst was pointing out that it didn't seem appropriate to post in the Proposals section (and I agree) because it's more a passing thought or idea than a formal proposal. So what you asked "not sure what you mean", I was trying to help answer that question. Yes, your "suggestion" involves a fundamental change, but that doesn't make it a "proposal". A proposal would be a formal well thought out and fully reasoned presentation for the community, rather than a passing thought about a big change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - Proposed license is NOT compatible with 'free' licensing terms which permit commerical use. Any works uploaded would have to be locally hosted in any event, as the above would be a non-starter on Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
That is an interesting approach, though I am not sure that it is a reasoned approach. Some thoughts to consider:
  • We host works that are not copyright in the US, yet some of these are still copyright in their home country, and we have both text and image as they cannot be at Commons.
  • We do not host some works as they have copyright in the US, even though they are out of copyright in their home country.
  • WMF has a broad scope to copyright and licensing and how they see that it applies and give latitude to how wikis can apply. It is a range, and up and down the range different conditions apply.
  • We license all of our works with the conditions that apply to their hosting, and their re-use. It is our rule about not allowing "non-commercial" or not having "fair use", it is not WMF's.
  • There are ways that we could differentiate non-commercial works from commercial works if we chose a different approach.
So how about a reasoned and logical debate, not an emotional one, or one that hinges on a dogma. Wikisource should develop, and that development should be in line with the scope of the WMF and its development. We should not be frozen in time. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:19, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it is WMF's rule about not allowing non-commercial. wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy says "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License, or which is otherwise free as recognized by the 'Definition of Free Cultural Works' as referenced above." And any emphasis on a logical debate is deceptive; the question is about deciding what our ultimate goals are, and logic can't advance that question.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
actually WMF does allow non-commercial works per "Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) A project-specific policy, in accordance with United States law and the law of countries where the project content is predominantly accessed (if any), that recognizes the limitations of copyright law (including case law) as applicable to the project, and permits the upload of copyrighted materials that can be legally used in the context of the project, regardless of their licensing status." maybe we could have a proposal for pre-1941 works not in print?
thank-you for being honest about the appeal to emotion, rather than appeal to reasom. Slowking4SvG's revenge 10:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
The page describes how EDPs should be used as:
"3. Such EDPs must be minimal. Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events, to include identifying protected works such as logos, or to complement (within narrow limits) articles about copyrighted contemporary works. ... Any content used under an EDP must be replaced with a freely licensed work whenever one is available which will serve the same educational purpose.
4. ... They must be used only in the context of other freely licensed content."
Yes, your appeal that we should maximize the volume of works we can work on is no more an appeal to reason than my appeal to staying with free works. Rationally we can speak of the value of a small set of works that we may be forced to take down if they come back in print, versus the huge universe of pre-1923 work that is untouchable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
you can call a fair use of the "orphan work out of print before 1941" an ideology if you want, but it is an ideology shared by the hathi trust and internet archive. they will do the work of selection, and we could support them. these are low risk items, that we can make available to the public, as a part of the sum of all knowledge. - they are partners i can collaborate with, unlike the FSF. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
A couple of examples of works that could fit within the EDP doctine, and I do preface that it is a little opening and possibly one that would take too much explaining to make it useful and sustainable.
  • works that are out of copyright in their home country, and that are out of print;
  • compiled works that are not copyrighted for parent work, though may contain work that is within copyright within US; traditionally we have blanked those components in our transcription, be they chapters or images.
As a question, does anyone know why there is an 1941 cutoff? I haven't seen mention of why the 75 years is pertinent. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Because, books published upto 1941, with 95 years' copyright, are within last 20 years of their copyright; and thus covered under 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Hrishikes (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • a lot of the works will be US home country, but out of print, and orphaned, so we do not know who the copyright holder is (although hathi trust found some subsequently) see also w:Orphan works in the United States
  • are you agreeing to a fair use of the lesser term? the Canadians and Chinese would be happy to agree with you.
  • compilations are rare compared to the orphan ocean. we can also do a copyright search for non-renewal, but this is not "untouchable", the rules are too complicated for bright lines, but we can show our work as a standard of practice. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the EDP, the only WS project I could find with a more-or-less clear stance is the French Wikisource, which allows both local uploads (like most except Japanese and Dutch) and, unusually, non-free content (which is discouraged, but some content is fair-use in French law; see this and this if you read French). Perhaps someone with a good command of French could research how they operate regarding these matters for ideas? Inatan (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

┌───────────────────────┘
Other than these "Last 20" books, I would like to draw attention to another class of books, already mentioned by @Billinghurst:, which are PD-home country but not PD-URAA. Such books are now allowed in Commons. Internet Archive has a good number, especially after the large-scale addition of DLI books. In case of Indian works, two types are now allowed here (exc. Govt woks & CC): Books published before 1923 and books by authors who died before 1941. If we allow PD-home country, then books of authors who died in 1941-1956 can be allowed, which is a huge number of books. For countries that are 70 pma (like UK), books by authors who died before 1947 can be allowed. This will considerably enrich the English Wikisource (e.g., by having the post-1923 works of Rabindranath Tagore and the books of hunting by Jim Corbett, among others). These are already allowed in Commons, so we may also consider. Hrishikes (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support conditionally when considering m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term#Orphan works for non-American works only. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this for orphan American works.--Jusjih (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course, I support any extension of our scope. Yann (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per ShakespeareFan00. Perhaps this proposal would be more appropriate over at Wikilivres. NMaia (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @NMaia: Wikilivres is in Canada. —Justin (koavf)TCM 18:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment wikilivres is no more; it is now https://biblio.wiki/wiki/Main_Page - it could be appropriate here, but you choose to wall yourself off from the decisions of hathi trust, and commons. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral; looks like a lot of bother and confusion for a handful of obscure works, but if people want to establish a clear policy or EDP that works with our existing policies and frameworks then go for it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment you should expect a periodic questioning of why no EDP, as naive people see work that very well could be done, but is not, for a lack of it. i am not confused. Slowking4SvG's revenge 16:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
If we pass this proposal, I would like to rewrite Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and possibly rename it. Chinese Wikisource is about to accept similar proposal.--Jusjih (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
We should delete Not-PD-US-URAA; it's not in use anywhere, and it's not relevant. Even if we accept this proposal, it's still not relevant; this applies to books published more than 75 years ago that have living authors as much as those with long dead authors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
i agree, we should delete not-pd-us-uraa - that is a commons drama, that no one cares about here enough to upload a work. chinese wikisource is going for "works of the lesser term" contrary to the "take it to wikilivres" above. but why there should be an ideological opposition to an EDP for a few works is interesting. does not add value. partnering with IA and hathi adds value. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Chinese Wikisource is considering this proposal here, so Template:Bibliowiki page now corresponds to zh:template:Not-PD-US-old. Undeleting Not-PD-US-URAA is provisional while considering m:Legal/Wikimedia_Server_Location_and_Free_Knowledge. Depending on whether this proposal goes, I may propose merging relevant contents of Not-PD-US-URAA into Template:Bibliowiki page, possibly renaming Template:Bibliowiki.--Jusjih (talk) 05:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
As I understand from an ongoing discussion by experts at the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook Group, we cannot consider Wikisource a library (for U.S. copyright law), for hosting the "Last 20" books. Internet Archive has official recognition as a library under US law in the state of California. That's why they can go ahead with this provision of 17 U.S.C. Section 108(h). Wikisource has no such recognition; so we cannot do it. People participating in that Facebook discussion were commenting on this discussion of ours, that Wikisource is not getting the "nuance" of the matter. Hrishikes (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
"library status" is a loophole in the code, to host the pdf’s. we can still claim fair use of orphan works out of print, regardless of theories of who we are. if it is an orphan there is no one to claim copyright. i often lament the lack of nuance of what passes for consensus, in many forums.Slowking4SvG's revenge 03:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Then are we considering m:Legal/Wikimedia Server Location and Free Knowledge to conditionally tolerate works affected by the m:United States non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term? I am ready to forget the "Last 20" books not affected by the US non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term.--Jusjih (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to standardize the {{table style}} template shorthand codes.[edit]

The shorthand codes of {{table style}} follow no logical sequence for easy recognition, and/or memorization. In addition, there are codes in the parsing table which are not listed and/or ever used.

I prepared a new shorthand table HERE to streamline the codes. The new parsing template HERE retains the old codes as well, not to damage the existing tables.

In the long term, the intention is to replace the old codes, replace rarely used codes with the standard CSS declarations, and eliminate unused codes.

Some stats: There are nearly (~24,000 pages linked to this template out of which, ~16,000 are from The Popular Science Monthly Project

Your input is most appreciated — Ineuw talk 04:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I prefer the current abbreviations and options. I can remember "lg" for large much more easily than "fs" followed by a number I can't remember. Also 92% is equivalent to "fine", so I'm not sure why you'd want to eliminate it, as it's one of the standard font reduction sizes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
The long term intent should be to eliminate the system altogether. It is utterly opaque even to experienced non-initiates, and poses an impossible barrier to entry to new contributors. All this to save a few keystrokes. Hesperian 06:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
While this is a good point, I find the drudgery of manually formatting tables to be a much larger barrier. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: First, you can keep using the same codes. Second you fail to realize that there is no size change over a range of percentages as demonstrated in these images File:1536x864res.jpg and File: 1664x936res.jpg. using a code like "fs90" for "font-size of 90%" makes a lot more sense than "lg", "xs" "fine" etc. My general view is that there is very little esthetics in our text where proportional size would look better and the old coding makes it impossible to know. @Hesperian: as for eliminating it, I am completely against it. Live and learn. — Ineuw talk 06:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
No, I can't keep using the same codes if we follow your proposal to change and delete current codes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support conditionally: if it's backwards-compatible, i.e. no "replacement" or "elimination". —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
After a thorough rethink (and a good night's sleep), I understand your objections, and only add my codes to the structure and if it is accepted, I need the community's approval to replace the parsing template with this clean and ordered version.

As for Hesperian's suggestion of expanding the codes with their proper CSS declarations I have no objection, as long as the template remains for proofreading. — Ineuw talk 20:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Its a shame there isn't a way to seperate the formating "data" from the template structure ... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
It should be more consistent in the notation, IMO.— Mpaa (talk) 10:18, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
         -->|lh10|lh1=line-height:100% => lh100
         -->|lh11=line-height:110%     => lh110
         -->|lh12=line-height:120%     => lh120
         -->|lh13=line-height:130%     => lh130
         -->|lh15=line-height:150%     => lh140
         -->|lh2|lh20=line-height:200% => lh200
         -->|pt15=padding-top:1.5em    => pt1.5
         -->|p15i1|it1p.5=padding-left:1.5em; text-indent:-1.0em  => p1.5i2
         -->|p25i2|itp.5=padding-left:2.5em; text-indent:-2.0em   => p2.5i2

Make author optional in header template[edit]

I would like to propose making the author parameter to the {{header}} template optional, and when it's not given use the {{author-list}} template instead. This pulls authorship information from Wikidata and constructs the correct links. At the moment it's working for normal authors and organisational ones (i.e. portals). It also wraps the links in 'structured HTML' which will help search engines indexing these works.

For example, Holy, Holy, Lord would have an author list of "", and Thompson v. Utah one of "" (without the quotation marks in both cases).

This template looks at the work's Wikidata item for an author, and if it can't find one it looks at the item that the work is an edition of (i.e. it traverses the P629 property).

Note that I'm not at all talking about override_author; that would continue as-is. This is just about the behaviour when the author parameter is left out or is blank.

I don't propose that this is going to be happening very soon, because I'm quite sure that there are things that I don't know about yet. I'll make test cases (at Module:Edition/testcases) for everything, to make future maintenance easier. I'm raising this now firstly to see if anyone thinks it's a good idea, and secondly to garner more examples of works with non-standard authors (i.e. we have lots of works with single, human, authors who have names; that's the simple case; I reckon there're other cases!).

Whadyareckon? —Sam Wilson 06:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval requests[edit]

SpBot[edit]

I note that User:SpBot is running without discussion or community approval, though the edits seem useful (archiving discussions) and probably non-controversial. However, I do not know how the bot determines when a discussion thread is ready to be archived or what time frame is allowed for continued discussion, so those could be issues. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, let's discuss again. BTW, my bot has a bot flag. --Euku (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
OK, looks like it was simply never added to the official list when it was approved. I've now done that. Thanks for your speedy response! --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Mpaa (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

Index:Angelo's Pic Nic.djvu[edit]

Can someone plese re-align the OCR text with the page scans? (and remove some duplicate pages at the start)?

I've been trying to pagelist this and it's not helped by the mis-aligned text layer. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

The work needs to be checked at archive.org, and may need to be re-derived there, especially as some of the OCR is rubbish. It is a mess, and not one with which that I believe someone should manually try to fiddle if it can be avoided.

Should I ask why you are intervening with someone else's index pages? They uploaded the work, they don't need you intervening on their setup. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Wikisource was a joint effort, and in trying to reduce the backlog of "File to check" entries, I was checking the pagelist on this work as I've done with countless others, without concern being raised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the text layer is now correctly aligned see Page:Angelo's Pic Nic.djvu/161, but that previously contributed pages need moving to reflect the correct layout. As that needs "somebody else" with admins powers to do block moves, I've reverted any attempts to add a page list, and will leave it for someone amply more competent in such matters such as yourself to resolve it with the uploader. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay it seems my cache is doing something weird. I'll let the uploader do the pagelist ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Page:Historyofpersiaf00watsrich.djvu/139[edit]

I'm not going to ask how this got moved around. Can an admin figure out what the **** went wrong, deleting,purging so that this page IS linked properly again before there's anymore junk created? Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Other discussions[edit]

Twitter tweet topic suggestions[edit]

My own knowledge of the stores/pulse of Wikisource is limited, so I am requesting ongoing help with suggestions for English Wikisource Twitter tweet topics. I will create a User subpage for that purpose for now for anyone who would like to offer suggestions. Topics can be about projects, discussions, collaborations, maintenance tasks, "on this day" facts, text content, trivia, etc. Primary focus is on Wikisource promotion to encourage collaboration/contribution. Thanks for any help. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

i would tweet, POTM and some @rosiestep WIR referencing, i.e. [[1] and [2]. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I moved your suggestion to a User subpage for ongoing suggestions so we don't take up space here. I also left a comment. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-45[edit]

18:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hey everyone,

The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can post technical proposals from now until November 20. The communities will vote on the proposals between November 28 and December 12. You can read more on the 2017 wishlist survey page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Minimum copyright renewal length?[edit]

Having been researching the copyright for the issues of Analog Science Fiction and Fact, I came across one renewal of the vol. 30 no. 5 (January 1943) issue that was made on 31st December 1969. I was under the belief that the renewal must be made in the 27th year, meaning it should have been made in either 1970 or 1971. Does this make the renewal invalid? Or, since it was made within a day of 1970, is it still a valid renewal? -Einstein95 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Most monthly magazines were actually published in the month before, to be on newsstands at the start of the month. For example, note on Page:US_Copyright_Office_-_Renewal_Registrations_-_1950.djvu/30:
EUPHORBIA, by Gene Stratton Porter. © Jeannette Porter Meehan (C)
(In Good housekeeping, Jan. 1923) © 20Dec22, B567091. R56308, 21Dec49.
where the January issue of Good Housekeeping is copyrighted the previous December.
Moreover, I'm uncomfortable splitting hairs like that; I don't think we have the skill to judge correctly all the details about whether a slightly off renewal is correct enough to survive a court challenge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot that the copyright application is the month before. I guess that the renewal was made at almost the last minute. -Einstein95 (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Authority control for works and edition[edit]

If a Wikisource mainspace page represents a specific edition of a work, how should this be managed with the {{authority control}} template when the AC data is split across the Wikidata work and edition items? Generally, that template is taking statement from Wikidata's edition item. However, these often don't contain all the AC data we might want at Wikisource.

For example Treasure Island (1911) (1911 ed.) has a Wikidata edition item (d:Q14944010) with an IA ID, LCCNbook, OCLC control number and an Open Library ID, but the work item (d:Q185118) also contains the VIAF ID for the work in general, along with many others. I think all these identifiers are useful on the Wikisource page?

What is the correct way to handle these case? Remove WS AC data that is on the edition page, but leave the work item AC data entered manually? Or is there a way for the {{authority control}} template to follow the P629 (edition or translation of) property if extant and also include AC data from that page? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the best approach, if the community agrees that AC data from d:Q185118 should be displayed on Treasure Island (1911), is to try to modify {{authority control}} to follow the relevant property and retrieve them that way. Manual entry should also be acceptable if desired, but I'd avoid it if the alternative is feasible. It's pretty much the same issue as linking to w:Treasure Island in the header of Treasure Island (1911). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
My opinion: The authority control data are separate because they indicate different things. The VIAF for the work is for the work in general, not for that edition, and so should be displayed with the work page only. The edition we have should point to a work (versions) page on WS where readers can access information about the work in general. We shouldn't mix work and edition data because that will confuse editors and readers alike. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but the vast majority of mainspace pages at Wikisource don't have a versions page until they get a second version. This rarely happens in the first place, and for a work that only ever had one edition, will never happen. Perhaps, if the AC template can indeed follow the "edition of" property, it could have a "work" and "edition" split? Would also save the user having to know to find the "version/work" page at Wikisource to find the VIAF link? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The (partial) solution at the Italian Wikisource is to have a new namespace called Opera: (Work: in Italian). We might want to consider that approach. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. In the meantime, while I check it out, I will try to avoid any edit that drops an AC field from WS, even if it means duplicating data like VIAF between a WS mainspace (i.e. edition) page and the WD work page for now. There are not many examples of this anyway - most duplicate WS/WD data appears to be OCLC edition data which already exists at WD. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment at Wikidata, edition data goes on the edition, and the work data goes on the work, we just pull the data for the appropriate item. Why would we do different If we are finding that there is a huge data hole, then maybe we can consider additional data display. I would hesitate to do that at this point due to the lack of pairs of work and editions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I understand that - it just seemed it might be valuable for a reader to be able to get to (say) the VIAF record or ISFDB title record from our WS page, which is actually an edition page, without needing a wrapper around every page to provide something for WD to hook up to as a work to hang that work AC data on.
Perhaps it's not even a problem that needs solving? I was just noting that we have pages that link to "work" items and some that link to "editions", and unsure how to reconcile the two. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a big discussion that is start starting to be resolved on various Wikisources. I've mentioned how the Italians are approaching the issue. And the French have been going through and splitting editions from works—often adding new editions in the process. On Wikidata, they're discussing data structure and what we mean by "work" and "edition", so the whole discussion is still very much in its early stages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
While we could, I don't overly fuss the current linking of authorities as our book data is so scarce anyway, and if you are putting it into WD correctly, then we an easily modify its presentation here. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
this is an issue in flux, and i would look to the wikicite people to arrive at a consensus. we can then pull the wikidata for work or edition as decided on. would not want to pre-decide an ontology that would make for rework. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds sensible, I'm happy to wait for the Wikicite/Wikidata people to get it set up how they want it and do it their way, when it happens. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Page:The mystic test book.djvu/119[edit]

I made a start on a template at {{MTBlayout}} but a template with 104 switches in it seems to be a case of doing it wrong.

This should be LUA if done at all? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a template at all? Isn't it just a one-off table of images, which can just be hard-coded directly into Page:The mystic test book.djvu/119? Is there scope for re-use of this table? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
It can be done as hard-coding, but the same layout is duplicated on a number of pages, and typing up a LOT of table markup is error-prone. If you want to assist feel free...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know there are permuted layouts on other pages. I though this was just a one-off table. I think a two-level template would be the best bet. Then you can have the table layout code at {{MTBlayout}} and the code that selects the card image at something like (say) {{MTBcardimg}}. The latter would contain just enough markup to render a single card based on suit and number, and the former would call it 52 times. The trade-off is, I think, a lot of parameter-passing in {{MTBlayout}}, but that's just copy-pasting. The two-level system is how {{table style}} and {{custom rule}} work. Lua might make it more concise, but I don't have enough of an idea to tell you how that might be done. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 18:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
I set up a subtemplate to use. I suggest that you subst the layout template on all the pages to prevent template overload. The subtemplate is called with safesubst to allow for this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
And then cleanup, It's a shame there isn't an #output: function, to only use the output from the switch parser function as opposed to a blind substitution, of the entire switch logic ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the global ban policy[edit]

Hello. Some changes to the community global ban policy have been proposed. Your comments are welcome at m:Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy. Please translate this message to your language, if needed. Cordially. Matiia (Matiia) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Better OCR?[edit]

Can a better ocr be obtained for this work Index:A Treatise on the Culture of the Vine and, and the Art of Making Wine.pdf? The ocr from the pdf is pretty bad and so is the ocr obtained from the ocr button. I also tried the google ocr button and that was pretty bad also. Jpez (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: Often the google scans from early days were not of the best resolution for good OCR. You can always try uploading the work to archive.org and see what they can do with the scan and reprocess the OCR. From there uploading with toollabs:ia-upload will enable you to bring it over in a djvu format, if preferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
This Google book has been imported to the IA already: https://archive.org/details/atreatiseoncult00busbgoog A quick look at the full text at the IA seems to show a rather better (but still pretty poor in absolute terms) OCR outcome. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes it looks like it's the scan quality which is to blame so I don't think any other ocr software would do a better job than what we've got here. @Inductiveload: I'm aware of the IA copy but I didn't like how some random pages were in colour and I thought it was an inferior scan. So I guess I'll just have to work with what I've got here. Thanks. Jpez (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Checked Hathi Trust? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Just had a look. It's there but limited search for me. Jpez (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
All they have is a modern 1979 edition, that will be limited search for everyone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
i see there is a 1979. reprint [6] of the 1825 original [7] works before around 1870 are bad ocr’s because typeface issues. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I copy-pasted the text from the pdf file downloaded from Gbooks, and the ocr is actually pretty good. Somehow it got all mangled when it was uploaded to Commons. Mudbringer (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
That's interesting @Mudbringer: I wouldn't have thought it would've been screwed up by commons like that.Jpez (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
the google ocr is better than the open source ocr from IA. for some language character sets, it is all they have, and they cut and paste routinely.Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Working with Once a Week, New Series, Volume VII (1871) — anyone got time to assist there?[edit]

GinnevraDubois (talkcontribs) has been uploading works from Once a Week. Recently they are being loaded as root works, rather than as subpages to the journal. Is someone available to with the contributor to get the works aligned to style, and to get some improved source data? We have components in the mix already Special:PrefixIndex/Once a Week (magazine). Thanks if you can. If no-one can, then I will look at it later in the week when I have a little more time. (I will note that I need to build a linking template for the works from the author pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Index not fully transcluded[edit]

A Treatise on Soap-Making was a quirky January 2017 PotM, and is marked as completed at PotM proposals, but it doesn't seem to have been fully transcluded with pages linked to from the TOC. Was this an oversight? I can probably get to transcluding it tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It needs transcluding and it is marked as needing it, so it is complying there. I will admit that I haven't been checking Category:Transclusion check required as regularly as I did due to other maintenance work. `— billinghurst sDrewth
Thanks. Wasn't at the helm as expected today, but I will try to get to it tomorrow; and I'll put the transclusion check Cat link on my housekeeping page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-46[edit]

19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Obvious errors in source[edit]

What's the policy for obvious errors (e.g. typos of common words) in the source text? Should they be transcribed verbatim with some kind of template to indicate the correct word? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Use {{SIC}} (which indicates a replacement in the text) or {{sic}} (which leaves no mark in the displayed text, but lets bots and problem searchers know that you've checked the word and it matches the scan.) Your choice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
But do keep in mind that some words have simply been spelled differently in the past. We don't mark words simply because they were spelled differently, but rather because they are spelled incorrectly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, for scanned texts, what you see is what you transcribe. @Grover cleveland: As stated we can have a "editorial commentary", it is mentioned in some of our Help: pages, though maybe not sufficiently. From the {{welcome}} message, which page link would you have expected to find that guidance? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, to be honest -- I'm more of a searcher than a follower of links :) Thanks for the feedback! Grover cleveland (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Second Edition of Wikisource Conference during 2018 at Strasbourg[edit]

Saluton ĉiuj,

Note: This message is mostly a duplicate of the the wikisource-l announce made on mailing list.

At Strasbourg, we want to organize a second edition of the Wikisource Conference during 2018. Things are falling into place over here, but before we go further, we need to know what kind of event format the community want:

  • how many attendees,
  • coming from where,
  • only wikisourcerers/wikimedians, or also open to a wider public like good potential institutional partners,
  • for how long,
  • in how many rooms with which capacity

We might go with the same format as Vienna, or we might go for something a bit different. Your feedback will be predominant in this decision.

In term of calendar, at first November have been proposed. That would let almost a full year to prepare the event, which might not be too much. We might also couple the event with "bilbiothèque idéale" (ideal library) an annual event which occurs usually in September. We do have institutional internal contact to give us more information about such a possibility, but it also need to be fine for wikisourcerers.

Be bold about gathering feedback from your local community, and let me know if there are other canals/tools you would like to see used for further organization, ie. Meta.

Ĝis baldaŭ, Psychoslave (talk) 10:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

i would suggest an event page either here or on meta, for collaboration. and a grant page to garner funding support. m:Wikisource Community User Group/November 2017 Hangout Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, a page on Meta sounds like a good idea. And talking of hangouts, shall we organise one for December? We could talk more about the conference ideas. Sam Wilson 03:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
May it be politically astute to have it at mulWS? Some of us may have to make a decision on whether to try to get to that or to Wikimania, with that decision-making dependent on the scholarship availability. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
And once that decision is made, we can get some banners requested through the WSes as a minimum. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Lists of author works[edit]

Noting that 'Lists' as reference material are not desirable in the Main, I was wondering if it is permissible to maintain lists in Author-space as subpages (exs.)—or should they instead remain in User-space? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have always considered the WWI reference to lists to be seen as related to published works (per the top of that page), as such our collection in main ns. We have always considered Portal: and Author: nss as curated spaces, so I would have said, go ahead where it is output to curate main namespace.

If we think we need to better express that WWI and published works/main ns relationship, then let us do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

How crazy am I allowed to get? I would also like to add a list of Coates' Greek mythology poetry, perhaps a Flora list, Fauna...? Also, @Billinghurst:, I am not quite sure what you meant by your last sentence. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
WS:WWI should clearly be showing that inclusion criteria relates to published works in main namespace. Implicitly we need to indicate that other nss are supportive of main nss and their processes work accordingly. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
My impression is that our Author: namespace lists items we have, or could have. We typically have opted not to include Authors whose works are not in PD. Are we planning to change that to allow authors whose works are hosted somewhere on-line? If so, we run the risk of turning into a link farm with the need to investigate whether or not our links point to works that are legitimately hosted. I for one would not want to begin allowing links to sites that illegally host works that are under copyright, nor would want to devote community effort to such investigation. --EncycloPetey (talk)
The war poetry list points to works strictly available at WS... I can see how the magazines & music lists (the latter in particular) may push the envelope. Magazines, however, link solely to WS versions, etc. pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
PS: @EncycloPetey: I agree that links should lead to WS works, and will reconsider/perhaps rework the music list. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Good specific point EP. Author pages and portal pages are contextual and supportive to our main namespace, or what could be in namespace. My commentary was implicitly slanted to subpages to author.

LJB: For the purpose of completeness, (my opinion only) I think listing music for an established and prolific author is fine as part of a compilation, and as the music was published. I would not think that we would do the same for people primarily known for their music, photography, art works where the listing the works is not usually focusing on published works we can reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Calling it a night, but thanks for your time. I will consider all of the above comments. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reworked Author:Florence Earle Coates/Music to link only to WS works. Will look over What Wikisource Includes for possible wording improvement/clarity. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of translation[edit]

Is this translation of a sonnet, published in The Romanic Review in 1925, out of copyright? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

i would say - PD-not renewed. going to the LOC cocat database (sorry no permalink) for "Romanic review" shows first registration in 1951 for "Pattern at the center". then 1962 then 1978, nothing near 1953 renewal. [12] and hathi pdfs show no hits in 1953 [13], [14] - your search may vary. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Cocat won't have renewals of works published in 1925. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11800 shows renewals for 1932 and 1941 and 1942, but not 1925. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html has a list of "all of the more than 1000 periodicals that renewed issue copyrights (for 1923-1950 issues) between 1950 and 1977, all the periodicals with contribution renewals made between 1950 and 1965", and doesn't mention The Romanic Review. I'd like to see more details, including specifically the translator's name, before saying it's clearly not renewed; there could be a renewal that doesn't mention the Romanic Review, or one with a typo in the name, and I'm assuming the underlying work is well and clearly PD, but it seems to be {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Slowking4 and Prosfilaes! @Prosfilaes: I believe the translator is w:Fidelino de Figueiredo. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
no hits there. given the renewal of four excerpts only, i would be tempted to upload all romanic review before 1978, including IA [15] and then go digitize the missing issues and block out the four exceptions to PD. [16] Slowking4SvG's revenge 12:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I think everything before Romanic review. Vol. 54, no. 3, Oct. 1963, is okay, but anything 1964 on just needed a copyright notice, not any notice with the Copyright Office. (The last two 1963 issues were renewed.) It would be nice to have volume 16 as scans instead of just one sonnet, but I don't see scans available online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again Slowking4 and Prosfilaes, for your time and research. I went ahead and created Love is a fire that burns yet burns unseen. (I know it's not ideal, but it's all I can do right now.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference Tooltips[edit]

Are we able to use Reference Tooltips here on wikisource the way it is used on wikipedia. I think it would make be a great addition for our readers. Jpez (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: it is a gadget, you should be able to use it here (said hoping that the code is fully pathed to allow that). You should even be able to set it to work globally if you put it in your meta global files, see local and global links in your preferences.
  • to either your local common.js file or meta global.js page
mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
  • to either your local common.css file or meta global.css page
@import url('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css');
billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Billinghurst: I will try it later. What does the community think of having on as default for all users? Jpez (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: I tried both approaches but no joy. Jpez (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jpez: I have updated the syntax used in your global.css per my comment. Maybe try it again. Otherwise we may have to User:Yaur rand to tell us what we are not doing. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
and just checking that you have the gadget "Navigation popups" turned off. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Cite link label group[edit]

could an admin please create the following reference label pages? it is for a work with roman and numeric footnotes - here are the wikipedia examples : [17]; [18] ; [19] see also w:Help:Cite_link_labels thanks. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously with the consensus to be that we do not replicate the style of the individual work, and to instead continue with our default/house style. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:26, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
fine by me. perhaps you would care to explain to me the house style for this page Page:The_Works_of_Lord_Byron_(ed._Coleridge,_Prothero)_-_Volume_3.djvu/126 i don’t get it. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Have you looked at Help:Footnotes and endnotes#Grouped footnotes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
yes, are you saying house style is to eschew roman numeral notes? interesting choice. could not find any discussion. Slowking4SvG's revenge 01:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Where did you look for discussion? I found more than a dozen threads on this issue, some of them quite involved, by doing a quick search. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-02#Footnote_groups.3F ?? i do not really follow what you are saying. since your "house style" does not replicate the work, i will stop on a work with roman numeral footnotes. but if you have a solution for the referenced page, i would like to see it. Slowking4SvG's revenge 02:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean when you say that house style does not replicate the work. Do you mean that it gives the footnotes a different symbol than the one in the work? That's quite common here at Wikisource, since individual pages in a work often use asterisks, daggers, or other symbols for marking footnotes. We do not try to replicate that. Most works will start at [1] for their first footnote on every single page, but in our final transcluded copy of the work, our numbering will run consecutively throughout all the pages transcluded to the same location. So again, that is a feature that we do not replicate. Nor do we replicate line breaks on pages, nor place footnotes on every page in the final work but collect them together, nor do we follow double spacing after periods, nor do we indent paragraphs, nor do we worry about specific fonts, nor do we do a great many things when we create a Wikisource copy. So I'm not sure why this particular issue is such a concern to you to slavishly replicate, when there are dozens (hundreds?) of ways in which a Wikisource copy "does not replicate the work". --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
roman numbers are symbols as arabic numbers are symbols. we have a work here with parallel roman and arabic footnotes through seven volumes. but i see you are adamant. it is a level of admin opposition to technical functionality that i am accustomed to seeing on other projects. sad to see it here. Slowking4SvG's revenge 14:46, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm (slowly) dealing with a work with two sets of footnotes on each page. A random page from the work is: Page:Romeo and Juliet (Dowden).djvu/113. Take a look and see if that will help. The mainspace page that contains this one is: The Tragedy of Romeo and Juliet (Dowden)/Act 2/Scene 4. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambig with multi-author[edit]

Does naming a page something like Song (Lyricist/Composer) cause anything to break due to the slash in the title? Is Song (Lyricist and Composer) preferable? Is Song (Lyricist) sufficient, since most versions here will be lyrics only anyway? Just wondering what others think. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would help commenters to understand better if we could see the content to be placed on this hypothetical page. I'm totally lost. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
We should avoid forwards slashes as that makes them subpages. We did address similar previouslybillinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
... and we should only disambiguate if necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: I'm attempting to build {{author-list}} using Wikidata, and would love some more test works to experiment with. What work are you dealing with here? Sam Wilson 02:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
@Samwilson: @EncycloPetey: Some examples that I have created or renamed, generally with just the lyricist in the disambig, but not with any real consistency:
etc. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. Thanks. I'll try to incorporate the 'lyrics by' P676 and 'composer' P86 properties as authors too. Are there any like this that aren't using 'override_author'? Sam Wilson 06:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-47[edit]

19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

New print to pdf feature for mobile web readers[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Global Collaboration products newsletter: 2017-11[edit]

15:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Timeless skin — noted issues[edit]

(see announcement section for scope of notes here)

  • Index: namespace— drop down list field for "type" is too wide for central pane
  • both right and left menus, the opposite of "minerva", loads fast - top "your account" drop down box - hides some left menu, would rather move it all there. "more" menu on right is a waste of real estate. waste of space on top toolbar for a large search box - and what a waste of drama on phabricator - no wonder we are stuck with the old skins. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:50, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
    • apparently works better on wikipedia, with four dropdown menus: navigation; wiki tools; page tools; languages. with a fifth user menu with search box. maybe they should check out why it does not work the same for wikisource? Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment for me the overarching font-size is too big which is causing wrapping in prev/next, and in pop-up forms. When I can work out which style will decrease the font for the whole page, and forms, then I will try again. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-48[edit]

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Index:A woman of the century.djvu is a duplicate of Index:Woman of the Century.djvu[edit]

I just saw that Index:A woman of the century.djvu is a duplicate of Index:Woman of the Century.djvu. It already was mentioned in a topic at the beginning of the year (https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-01#A_Woman_of_the_Century), but it seems that now the work has been entirely proofread, so the redundant one can be safely deleted.

Koxinga (talk) 21:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@Slowking4: is this safe to now delete? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
yes, thank-you. the former was uploaded, before checking for the latter. and latter is now ready for validation. Slowking4SvG's revenge 23:27, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done thx — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A little help with my project[edit]

Hi, I did a lot of work setting the project up and then started to mess around with this page. I don't know if I did well though. Will you see if it can be fixed? Thanks so much. I truly appreciate it. Thanks.

A Statistical Account of Bengal/Vol 1/Preface.

Samiur Rahman 2017 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Samiur Rahman: Some initial thoughts. You will want to create A Statistical Account of Bengal/Volume 1, which will include the front matter of the volume & Table of Contents &c. For your Preface page, it is preferable to write out the word "Volume" in the title. You can perform a move to make that change. However, I personally would wait to transclude text until more Index pages have been proofread. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
and need to clean-up table of contents. i started one page here [40], (or you could use template:TOC) ; then you can make you table of contents page, and chapter pages for each volume. Slowking4SvG's revenge 18:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A minor question about categorization[edit]

Would Category:Natural resource management be considered as a sub category of Category:Nature? — Ineuw talk 20:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I think that's an ok subcategory. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Template {{efn}} to manage different group of footnotes with predefined markers[edit]

Is there any reason why the template {{efn}} should not be available and working properly in Wikisource as it is in Wikipedia? Used in Wikisource it produces numeric (instead of letter) markers preceded by the prefix "lower-alpha", as if the template was partially recognized but not implemented… — Malachia (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Because house style is not to do that. We've had this discussion many, many times. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
@Malachia: local information at Help:Footnotes and endnotes. In short, as we are not lloking to replicate the style of the work, and it can fail miserably once we change from page footnotes, to chapter endnotes; hence our decision on how and why we stick with standard numerical refs. Happy to explain why, though as EP says, we don't feel like recycling the debate, noting it is in the archives of this page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-49[edit]

17:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Local notes[edit]

  • Special:LintErrors to see where we are situated. It looks to be a long way off for us. From my looking it seems that we have an abundance of trying to use <span> sizing templates over one or more &ltp>. That means either replicating the template formatting for each paragraph, or converting to the block equivalent. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Magazine article in scope?[edit]

There's an article in The New Republic by Lisbet Rausing, a notable (in Wikipedia terms) historian. The article, which talks about how libraries will have to evolve in the internet age, was released by her into the public domain (at the bottom). I personally found this to be an important and insightful article about the world's cultural knowledge and it even mentions Wikipedia's place in this, so I'd like to republish it here since the license allows. However, I'm not sure if it's in scope. We do have magazine articles, and the publishing magazine and author are both notable, but it's a non-fictional opinion piece mainly rather than scholarly, artistic, or analytical. Opencooper (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Opencooper: the guide is WS:WWI and primarily we are wishing for peer-reviewed articles, where that is either academic or professional. I would think that the New Republic would qualify for the publishing medium so it will be fine. While we would normally look to set the article within the context of its publishing medium, that it is unlikely from that source, so it would just be a straight root article, appropriately sourced. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Alright, that makes sense considering the article would have went through editorial. Thanks for the link and the guidance. :). Opencooper (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Update: turns out, I was beaten to it. Sorry, I should have checked if it was uploaded already, but this does help me know what might be acceptable in the future. Opencooper (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

needs a scan on commons, and pages transcluded. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It seems this was published digitally only. A search of the magazine's archives didn't turn up this article. Opencooper (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot fixing broken transclusions (LST-guard)[edit]

Hi community. I have been working for a while on a bot that deals with broken transclusions (under guidance of user:Xelgen). The issue that we try to address are the instances when a user changes section labels in a page A and forgets to update a page B where these sections are transcluded. This doesn't happen a lot, but when it does, it might go unnoticed for quite a long time. Transcluding pages don't show any error or warning message and might even show content (which is potentially incomplete or misplaced).

A fresh example of such a case is here. The transclusion was caught and corrected by the bot here.

You can find a detailed description of how the bot works on github and on user:VacioBot where there is also an stop button that safely and immediately stops the bot from editing.

The reason I write here is to ask if the community feels save to run the bot for a longer period of time non-stop. Until now I tested the bot a few times, about 1-2 days each time. There are still a few things that I am still working on, but I think the bot is ready for a longer run. I would prefer to continue to without a bot flag so its edit are visible to normal users (there aren't going to be more than a few edits daily anyway).

I would be happy to hear your suggestions and opinion. Best --Vacio (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

or you could talk to a certain editor about his section naming practices. Slowking4SvG's revenge 15:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
If you would like to request permission for a bot, there is a special section for Bot Approval Requests at the top of this page. You would start a section there, and provide the necessary information for the Community to voice approval. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Caltech "Engineering and Science" issues[edit]

Caltech has made complete issues of Engineering and Science available on its website. http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/view/subjects/journal=5Fissue.html There are 474 issues (at time of writing) dating from 1937 to 2017. These include a number of articles, including Richard Feynman's There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom. All of these have the usage policy

"You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format."

Is this usage policy compatible with Wikisource? -Einstein95 (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, on Help:Copyright tags, it mentions "Please note that non-commercial, fair use, and most copyright licenses are not acceptable; see the copyright policy.", yet Wikisource:Copyright policy doesn't mention the text "non-commercial". -Einstein95 (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
It says "Free content is content which can be freely viewed, used, distributed, modified, and exploited by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without exception and without limitation (except as explicitly allowed below)."--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Right, I guess I shouldn't rely in Ctrl+F. -Einstein95 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
No; non-commercial rights are in general not acceptable on Wikimedia. Looking at Engineering and Science, Volume 1:3, December 1937 (which seems to be a different title), there doesn't seem to be a copyright notice. A sample 1946 issue has an attempt at a copyright notice, though it looks deficient. By 1957, they finally figured out the proper form of a copyright notice. Nonetheless, they don't seem to have renewed any of them, so with the possible exception of reprinted material, all of them up to 1963 are probably out of copyright in the US. After that, however, they'd be in copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, brilliant. Guess this will go into the "Projects to start" pile. -Einstein95 (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
i would upload to internet archive, and say "PD-US not renewed" for before 63 issues. (they do not appear yet [48] ) then upload to commons, with a category similar to Modern Electrics magazine [49] using IAuploader. cheers. Slowking4SvG's revenge 00:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Blocking tools consultation[edit]

Hello all,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team invites all Wikimedians to discuss new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools in December 2017 for development work in early 2018.

How can you help?

  1. Share your ideas on the discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
  2. Spread the word that the consultation is happening; this is an important discussion for making decisions about improving the blocking tools.
  3. Help with translation.
  4. If you know of previous discussions about blocking tools that happened on your wiki, share the links.

We are looking forward to learning your ideas.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-50[edit]

17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Copyright laws regarding The Constitution of Bangladesh.[edit]

Please excuse me, as I'm new to Wikisource. I was looking up the constitution of various countries on Wikisource and I noticed that there was no entry about the constitution of Bangladesh. I tried searching around and on This website, which happens to be written in Bengali (I'm from Bangladesh), I found out that government works have 60 years of copyright since their first publication. But my main problem is that on here, it states this certain line: [The reproduction or publication of certain Government works (unless prohibited; sub-s. 17)]. Now, I don't know if the publication of the Constitution Of Bangladesh's allowed or not. As far as I know, It was first ratified in 4 November, 1972 and became effective on 12 December of that same year. It has been about 44 years since first publication. My main question is, Is the publication of the Constitution of Bangladesh allowed? (Also, do excuse my English.) DarkSpartan (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@DarkSpartan: It is allowed under c:Template:EdictGov-Bangladesh. Hrishikes (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Note that translations can have their own problems; we'd need either a clearly free translation or a translation by us. Google Translate or other machine translation can make a start.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg as mentioned in IRC see Wikisource:translations for information about original translations. If there is a scan uploaded in Bangli for the bnWS transcription. The same scan can have an enWS index: page here and corresponding enWS Page: which can be utilised for the image/translation. [Ask me to expand on anything, this is just a concise answer.] — billinghurst sDrewth 01:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
For versions at bnWS: calligraphic: https://bn.wikisource.org/s/bsgd, printed: https://bn.wikisource.org/s/1jn. Hrishikes (talk) 03:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)